Tobacco-Free Pledge Faces Another Reversal as Import Concessions Expand

The government’s tobacco policy is increasingly moving in two opposing directions, with a new regulation expanding duty-free concessions for tobacco products shortly after the Cabinet approved a nationwide campaign against tobacco and nicotine use.

An amendment gazetted on Monday allows all travellers aged 21 and above, including Maldivians, to bring limited quantities of tobacco into the country for personal use without paying customs duty.

Previously, this concession was available only to tourists aged 18 and above. Under the revised rule, eligible travellers may bring either 200 cigarettes, 20 cigars or 100 grams of another tobacco product.

The amendment also permits travellers to bring a small manual cigarette or beedi rolling machine, along with up to 50 rolling papers, 50 filters and 50 empty tubes for personal use.

The concessions will not apply to anyone born in 2007 or later, in line with the generational tobacco ban. Shisha, e-cigarettes, e-liquids and flavoured cigarettes will also remain outside the exemption.

While the revised limits for cigars and other tobacco products are lower than those previously available to tourists, the amendment significantly expands the group entitled to duty-free concessions by extending them to Maldivian travellers.

The government has not publicly provided a detailed policy justification for widening the exemption. On its own, the change may be presented as equal treatment for Maldivian and foreign travellers. Viewed alongside the administration’s recent decisions, however, it adds to growing questions about whether its original tobacco-control strategy is being steadily dismantled.

In November 2024, the government set the specific import duty at MVR 8 per cigarette, alongside a 50 per cent ad valorem duty. The higher levies formed part of the administration’s wider effort to reduce tobacco consumption.

That decision was reversed in July 2026. The specific duty was reduced to MVR 4 per cigarette, while the percentage-based duty was cut from 50 per cent to 30 per cent, making legally imported cigarettes considerably cheaper.

The government argued that higher prices had driven consumers towards smuggled cigarettes and other tobacco products. It also claimed the revised rate was based on discussions and research involving the World Health Organization. However, the research and technical assessments cited in support of the reduction have not been made public.

Illicit trade is a legitimate policy concern, but reducing taxes and widening personal import concessions amount to lowering barriers around tobacco rather than strengthening enforcement against illegal suppliers. International public-health guidance generally treats taxation, supply-chain monitoring, licensing and enforcement as measures that should work together, not as alternatives.

The timing of the latest amendment makes the contradiction particularly difficult to ignore. On 18 August, the President’s Office announced that the government would take its anti-tobacco campaign into schools, appoint focal points on every inhabited island, involve civil society organisations and youth groups, and work towards ensuring that national athletes remain tobacco-free.

Less than a week later, it expanded the right to bring tobacco into the country duty-free.

The government has retained its generational ban and its nationwide prohibition on vaping products. The Maldives also remains the first country to enforce a tobacco ban based on year of birth. Those are major restrictions, particularly for younger people.

But a credible public-health policy cannot depend on headline bans while other decisions make tobacco cheaper or easier to obtain for the rest of the population. Awareness campaigns in schools and communities lose force when fiscal and customs policies send a more permissive message to adults.

The reasons behind the government’s original tobacco-control measures have not disappeared. Tobacco remains addictive, young people remain vulnerable to taking up smoking, and tobacco-related illnesses continue to place pressure on families and the health system.

If the government now believes its earlier approach was ineffective, it must publish the evidence, explain what changed and present a coherent replacement. Reversing one measure after another without disclosing the supporting analysis gives the impression of policy being adjusted reactively rather than guided by a consistent public-health strategy.

The central question is therefore no longer whether each individual amendment can be technically justified. It is whether the government can still credibly claim to be pursuing a tobacco-free Maldives while repeatedly retreating from the policies introduced to achieve it.